Twitter @haarsager

Friday, 07 August 2009

Does Facebook contain the seeds of its own decline?

Social media outlets have certainly grabbed a significant share of attention, both from individuals and from organizations hoping to ride what many perceive to be a wave. I participate in three such (or four, if you count blogging), Twitter, LinkedIn and Facebook, in declining order of value to me. As this is written, I have 382 "followers" on Twitter, 152 "connections" on LinkedIn, and 264 "friends" on Facebook. This compares to about 800 subcribers that FeedBurner says I have for this weblog. Modest levels all.

What motivates most of my Twitter "followers" is a mystery (in the last few months, some may have come from the follow link below left). They generally come in at a pretty steady clip -- one or two a day, though once in awhile there is a burst of 10-15 in a day. I recognize very few of the IDs. The 86 people I follow are of two types -- a handful people close to me (mostly family) whose tweets I like to get on my phone, and then everyone else who I read mostly using TweetDeck, which helpfully pushes tweets out. Those I follow are mostly favorites from my blogroll -- easier than scanning RSS feeds. No, you can't say much in 140 characters, but that's a good thing.

LinkedIn "connections" are almost entirely people with whom I've had a business relationship. I've used LinkedIn a few times to check "who is this person?" and a couple of times to look for potential hires. It's nice to have but not essential.

Then there's Facebook. Hope I don't come off as a misanthrope for the following -- I'm not -- but here goes...

In contrast to Twitter and LinkedIn, Facebook is increasingly annoying. "That's OK, grandpa," I imagine some of you saying, "it wasn't built for you in the first place." But when I read, as I did this morning in the Financial Times, that social sites are losing popularity with British 15-24's, I wonder if it's something more than what the author supposes is loss of the "cool" factor. Perhaps it's the underlying math of Facebook.

Think about your connections to other people. You have family and dear friends, casual friends, acquaintances, etc. As the circle of "friends" expands, you become less interested, frankly, in the stream of pictures and comments that come from them nor in the growing number of requests to join and support and hug and poke and to offer up your "friends" to causes and the like -- Facebook is full of goofy apps. It's set up like a big chain letter -- or rather a series of them -- only without the threat of harm if you break the chain. It's been ages since I actually did anything on Facebook other than respond to requests.

As your group of "friends" expands beyond your initial core group, you get more and more requests to "friend" new people. The longer you're on Facebook, the more common are requests to "friend" people who you barely know, or maybe met at a conference a long time ago, or in some cases don't recall ever hearing of. Yet they all come with some "friends" in common, so you want to be nice and include them in your circle. Maybe you had a great dinner or served on a committee with them five years ago and just forgot.

So, eventually, it seems that the math of Facebook becomes essentially a Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon game where almost everyone can be connected. Management of "friends" and their various requests becomes your primary reason to visit the site, but the value of the site as a true social glue diminishes in proportion to the number of more distant relationships you "friend."

So here's my theory -- feel free to knock it down: The reported declining use among teens and early 20s is because they've been through the "chain letter" earlier than the rest of us and have thus widened their circle of friends already, and that's led to declining value for them.

Oh, hold it... Kevin added you as a a friend on Facebook. We need to confirm that you know Kevin in order for you to be friends on Facebook.

Comments

I disagree that Facebook is losing any value because of age demographics. I also disagree that it is actually set up like a big chain letter. However, the zillions of junk applications that users are addicted to are nothing but chain letters, the bare bones Facebook platform itself isn't. But users misuse even the basic platform such as the wall and "notes" to send stupid chain letters. Most of the applications people use are nothing but spammy viral crap, and there are way too many groups that instruct you to invite all your friends and add everybody in the group as your friend. So, it's not Facebook itself that's the problem, it's the misuse of it by app developers and by users who just can't resist any viral pest that tricks them into thinking it's fun or cool. Walls and the notes are meant for people to write down messages for others, and their own personal thoughts. Instead, people are junking these up with chain letter hoaxes and questionaires that are quite frankly, dead-boring to read! http://chainletters.pbworks.com

Hm. Interesting that the one social media you think the most valuable is the one that doesn't (yet) accommodate advertising! If you had to pay to use Twitter, would you? Would all the people (that matter most to you) that you touch on Twitter also be willing to pay? -- or would the value of a personally comprehensive network be too diminished to continue to invest attention in it?

FB has value as another "large network" and demands as its coin a user's attention. As Eric points out there are ways to harness these demands, although I'm not sure how many people (e.g. boomers) will figure them out, or take the time (e.g. youngers) to figure them out. Perhaps the "price" will exceed the value, and FB will fade.

I think Twitter has it nailed as a personalized "news network." I am still waiting for social networks to realize their potential as the instruments of frictionless commerce. When I find blueberries for 75 cents a pound, I'll let all my friends in town know Now. When flights into Moscow are on one-day sale for $50, I'll let all my Palouse connections know Now. When I finally find more of those trouser hangers my mom bought 15 years ago that snap closed and stay closed, at any price... well you get the idea.

Dennis -
I think you have a point, but I think you're also mixing two different issues:
1. FB becomes less useful as your universe of friends becomes larger. I agree. At the core of this issue is that the number of status updates and messages you get from someone is determined by THEIR posting rate not YOUR interest in them. I think FB is beginning to address this by having you add people to "lists". Essentially, over time, they'll let you filter things in a way that you'll be able to determine how much you see from whom. (I think of this as concentric circles. You can be friends with someone but not that interested... you put them in an outer circle and hear less from them).
2. The fact that use if a product by young people neither predicts it use by those same young people in a year nor by the next group of young people. Even if FB (or MySpace or Twitter) were the PERFECT product for kids 15-24, that age group (at any point in time) has little built up history or brand loyalty. Their needs and wants are changing about every 3 weeks - so they're very open to new products, what's hip, etc. So it is INEVITABLE that they will move on from whatever they're using today. Will FB try to create a new youth brand? Will someone else come up with the next cool thing for teens? TBD...